Memphis TA Roadshow Feb 18th
02-18-2011, 05:30 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: FedEx
Posts: 666
Memphis TA Roadshow Feb 18th
I attended the road show on the TA today in Memphis. I have to admit that I was a definite no going in, but after listening to the presentation and talking to some of the NC and our chairman I have to say that I am pretty much inclined to vote in favor of the TA. I will tell you why if you care to hear, but I don’t think that I will be able to change many minds.
That being said, the one thing every pilot should do is to attend one of these presentations if at all possible. Everybody has an opinion, and the guys representing us have theirs. They are much closer to the issue than we are, however, and so I have to weigh their opinions more perhaps than the next guy’s. I wanted to look into their eyes and see what they had to say about the TA. If you can’t make a road show then by all means watch the videos, write the NC and block reps, ask questions, and read the TA. Get as much info as you can before you make your decision.
I said I would tell you why I am inclined to vote in favor of the TA. Here goes:
One of the sticking issues for others there today (not to me) was that there is no payback for the losses incurred during 4A2b. I don’t know how to break this to you, but I don’t think there will ever be any, for a couple of reasons. The first, and biggest, is: we lost the grievance. It’s over. We lost. That money is gone.
Secondly, because we got our hat handed to us in arbitration, I don’t get the impression that the NC is all that committed to specifically getting any payback for 4A2b. The company didn’t really save any money in 4A2b. Union dues collected were very similar to the year before. If you want your 4A2b money back, go shake down the super senior in each seat who bid the carryover lines and got 100+ hour BLGs while you and I got our 55 to 60 hours per month. Go shake down the guys who bid the 777 without a pay rate AND enjoyed the massive BLGs that went with it. Go shake down the 757 guys who had monstrous BLGs as well. The company is laughing all the way to the bank, having successfully pitted us against each other during the whole debacle. Bottom line is the pay was just redistributed, not really decreased during 4A2b. We need to get back into section 4 and fix these issues, but we can't do it yet. At least this TA retains the settlement language that we got last year in terms of the exit and fleet BLG averages.
The next biggest stumbling block (in my opinion) to accepting this TA is that we are giving up our greatest leverage by giving the company the FDA LOA. That was my opinion as well. No way we should cave on that without a complete CBA TA. How could we do this and not reap any gains in the areas many of us care deeply about? Trip trades, accepted fares, reserve, chapter 11 etc? Why didn’t we get more for the precious FDA LOA?
After listening to the presentation I am no longer convinced that the FDA LOA is the magic bean for the company. Yes it will save them money and require fewer pilots in the long run, but they are going to open the FDA with an LOA or without (no pun intended) because it makes business sense to do so. They will have absolutely no problem filling either seat in CDG, because we (the pilots) just can’t help ourselves. We can’t even keep from flying DPs or bidding the 777 without a pay rate, how are we going to not fall all over each other to bid CDG? MD-11 in HKG might be more of a challenge in the right seat, but they will be able to fill that with new hires (sound familiar) if they need to under the current CBA.
Not as much leverage perhaps as many think. The guys closest to the situation don’t think so, I have to at least consider that opinion.
So what is our leverage? What will we use to get the company back to the table to negotiate in good faith a complete TA a year from now (or two)?
Ultra long range work rules will still need to be bargained, and that is what the company will really need to get the maximum utilization and competitive advantage out of the 777s.
The company will be forced back to the table after the work rule changes are released, and they have gone on record with the NMB apparently that they will continue to participate in discussions during the next year (or two) while we await the final rules.
The NC got as many gains as they thought they could all things considered. It wasn’t the best perhaps, but it isn’t a bad deal and it allows us to bring them back to the table hopefully while the political climate still favors the labor side of the issue.
I honestly get the impression that although the NC feels this is the way to go, they won’t be too surprised or have their feelings hurt if it is voted down. They will go right back to work negotiating with the company either way.
The MEC voted 10-2 to bring it to the membership for a vote. They purposely forwarded it without a recommendation. I think the MEC is not completely sold on the idea but feel the option was worth putting to the membership to decide. I actually appreciate that more now because I don’t think they are trying to oversell the TA, unlike was done with the FDA LOA. They have chosen to put it in our hands to decide, as it should be.
Nobody on the NC has said that this is the best we could possibly get. But the givebacks are minimal and there are substantive gains. You can read the summary, they aren’t earth shattering but they are something to tide us over to the real deal (sections 3, 4, 12 and 25). I don’t think this would have passed without the escape clause that could have us back in section 6 negotiations about 10 months after this thing is ratified (if it is).
In summary (I apologize for the lengthy post, I hope it makes sense) what we have is an opportunity to reap a few gains and get some money up front to accept a delay that was going to happen anyway. The company would not move forward with the work rule decision pending, and this allows us to make some extra money while we all wait for the big economic sections to be resolved. The work rule NPRM, the need to negotiate ULR work rules, and their previous statements to the NMB will force them back to the table in less than 10 months if we decide to take the one year option.
The trade off seems more reasonable to me than it did before the meeting, so much so that I have to keep an open mind while I lean toward voting in favor of the TA.
FJ
That being said, the one thing every pilot should do is to attend one of these presentations if at all possible. Everybody has an opinion, and the guys representing us have theirs. They are much closer to the issue than we are, however, and so I have to weigh their opinions more perhaps than the next guy’s. I wanted to look into their eyes and see what they had to say about the TA. If you can’t make a road show then by all means watch the videos, write the NC and block reps, ask questions, and read the TA. Get as much info as you can before you make your decision.
I said I would tell you why I am inclined to vote in favor of the TA. Here goes:
One of the sticking issues for others there today (not to me) was that there is no payback for the losses incurred during 4A2b. I don’t know how to break this to you, but I don’t think there will ever be any, for a couple of reasons. The first, and biggest, is: we lost the grievance. It’s over. We lost. That money is gone.
Secondly, because we got our hat handed to us in arbitration, I don’t get the impression that the NC is all that committed to specifically getting any payback for 4A2b. The company didn’t really save any money in 4A2b. Union dues collected were very similar to the year before. If you want your 4A2b money back, go shake down the super senior in each seat who bid the carryover lines and got 100+ hour BLGs while you and I got our 55 to 60 hours per month. Go shake down the guys who bid the 777 without a pay rate AND enjoyed the massive BLGs that went with it. Go shake down the 757 guys who had monstrous BLGs as well. The company is laughing all the way to the bank, having successfully pitted us against each other during the whole debacle. Bottom line is the pay was just redistributed, not really decreased during 4A2b. We need to get back into section 4 and fix these issues, but we can't do it yet. At least this TA retains the settlement language that we got last year in terms of the exit and fleet BLG averages.
The next biggest stumbling block (in my opinion) to accepting this TA is that we are giving up our greatest leverage by giving the company the FDA LOA. That was my opinion as well. No way we should cave on that without a complete CBA TA. How could we do this and not reap any gains in the areas many of us care deeply about? Trip trades, accepted fares, reserve, chapter 11 etc? Why didn’t we get more for the precious FDA LOA?
After listening to the presentation I am no longer convinced that the FDA LOA is the magic bean for the company. Yes it will save them money and require fewer pilots in the long run, but they are going to open the FDA with an LOA or without (no pun intended) because it makes business sense to do so. They will have absolutely no problem filling either seat in CDG, because we (the pilots) just can’t help ourselves. We can’t even keep from flying DPs or bidding the 777 without a pay rate, how are we going to not fall all over each other to bid CDG? MD-11 in HKG might be more of a challenge in the right seat, but they will be able to fill that with new hires (sound familiar) if they need to under the current CBA.
Not as much leverage perhaps as many think. The guys closest to the situation don’t think so, I have to at least consider that opinion.
So what is our leverage? What will we use to get the company back to the table to negotiate in good faith a complete TA a year from now (or two)?
Ultra long range work rules will still need to be bargained, and that is what the company will really need to get the maximum utilization and competitive advantage out of the 777s.
The company will be forced back to the table after the work rule changes are released, and they have gone on record with the NMB apparently that they will continue to participate in discussions during the next year (or two) while we await the final rules.
The NC got as many gains as they thought they could all things considered. It wasn’t the best perhaps, but it isn’t a bad deal and it allows us to bring them back to the table hopefully while the political climate still favors the labor side of the issue.
I honestly get the impression that although the NC feels this is the way to go, they won’t be too surprised or have their feelings hurt if it is voted down. They will go right back to work negotiating with the company either way.
The MEC voted 10-2 to bring it to the membership for a vote. They purposely forwarded it without a recommendation. I think the MEC is not completely sold on the idea but feel the option was worth putting to the membership to decide. I actually appreciate that more now because I don’t think they are trying to oversell the TA, unlike was done with the FDA LOA. They have chosen to put it in our hands to decide, as it should be.
Nobody on the NC has said that this is the best we could possibly get. But the givebacks are minimal and there are substantive gains. You can read the summary, they aren’t earth shattering but they are something to tide us over to the real deal (sections 3, 4, 12 and 25). I don’t think this would have passed without the escape clause that could have us back in section 6 negotiations about 10 months after this thing is ratified (if it is).
In summary (I apologize for the lengthy post, I hope it makes sense) what we have is an opportunity to reap a few gains and get some money up front to accept a delay that was going to happen anyway. The company would not move forward with the work rule decision pending, and this allows us to make some extra money while we all wait for the big economic sections to be resolved. The work rule NPRM, the need to negotiate ULR work rules, and their previous statements to the NMB will force them back to the table in less than 10 months if we decide to take the one year option.
The trade off seems more reasonable to me than it did before the meeting, so much so that I have to keep an open mind while I lean toward voting in favor of the TA.
FJ
02-18-2011, 06:23 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,199
I attended the road show on the TA today in Memphis. I have to admit that I was a definite no going in, but after listening to the presentation and talking to some of the NC and our chairman I have to say that I am pretty much inclined to vote in favor of the TA. I will tell you why if you care to hear, but I don’t think that I will be able to change many minds.
That being said, the one thing every pilot should do is to attend one of these presentations if at all possible. Everybody has an opinion, and the guys representing us have theirs. They are much closer to the issue than we are, however, and so I have to weigh their opinions more perhaps than the next guy’s. I wanted to look into their eyes and see what they had to say about the TA. If you can’t make a road show then by all means watch the videos, write the NC and block reps, ask questions, and read the TA. Get as much info as you can before you make your decision.
I said I would tell you why I am inclined to vote in favor of the TA. Here goes:
One of the sticking issues for others there today (not to me) was that there is no payback for the losses incurred during 4A2b. I don’t know how to break this to you, but I don’t think there will ever be any, for a couple of reasons. The first, and biggest, is: we lost the grievance. It’s over. We lost. That money is gone.
Secondly, because we got our hat handed to us in arbitration, I don’t get the impression that the NC is all that committed to specifically getting any payback for 4A2b. The company didn’t really save any money in 4A2b. Union dues collected were very similar to the year before. If you want your 4A2b money back, go shake down the super senior in each seat who bid the carryover lines and got 100+ hour BLGs while you and I got our 55 to 60 hours per month. Go shake down the guys who bid the 777 without a pay rate AND enjoyed the massive BLGs that went with it. Go shake down the 757 guys who had monstrous BLGs as well. The company is laughing all the way to the bank, having successfully pitted us against each other during the whole debacle. Bottom line is the pay was just redistributed, not really decreased during 4A2b. We need to get back into section 4 and fix these issues, but we can't do it yet. At least this TA retains the settlement language that we got last year in terms of the exit and fleet BLG averages.
The next biggest stumbling block (in my opinion) to accepting this TA is that we are giving up our greatest leverage by giving the company the FDA LOA. That was my opinion as well. No way we should cave on that without a complete CBA TA. How could we do this and not reap any gains in the areas many of us care deeply about? Trip trades, accepted fares, reserve, chapter 11 etc? Why didn’t we get more for the precious FDA LOA?
After listening to the presentation I am no longer convinced that the FDA LOA is the magic bean for the company. Yes it will save them money and require fewer pilots in the long run, but they are going to open the FDA with an LOA or without (no pun intended) because it makes business sense to do so. They will have absolutely no problem filling either seat in CDG, because we (the pilots) just can’t help ourselves. We can’t even keep from flying DPs or bidding the 777 without a pay rate, how are we going to not fall all over each other to bid CDG? MD-11 in HKG might be more of a challenge in the right seat, but they will be able to fill that with new hires (sound familiar) if they need to under the current CBA.
Not as much leverage perhaps as many think. The guys closest to the situation don’t think so, I have to at least consider that opinion.
So what is our leverage? What will we use to get the company back to the table to negotiate in good faith a complete TA a year from now (or two)?
Ultra long range work rules will still need to be bargained, and that is what the company will really need to get the maximum utilization and competitive advantage out of the 777s.
The company will be forced back to the table after the work rule changes are released, and they have gone on record with the NMB apparently that they will continue to participate in discussions during the next year (or two) while we await the final rules.
The NC got as many gains as they thought they could all things considered. It wasn’t the best perhaps, but it isn’t a bad deal and it allows us to bring them back to the table hopefully while the political climate still favors the labor side of the issue.
I honestly get the impression that although the NC feels this is the way to go, they won’t be too surprised or have their feelings hurt if it is voted down. They will go right back to work negotiating with the company either way.
The MEC voted 10-2 to bring it to the membership for a vote. They purposely forwarded it without a recommendation. I think the MEC is not completely sold on the idea but feel the option was worth putting to the membership to decide. I actually appreciate that more now because I don’t think they are trying to oversell the TA, unlike was done with the FDA LOA. They have chosen to put it in our hands to decide, as it should be.
Nobody on the NC has said that this is the best we could possibly get. But the givebacks are minimal and there are substantive gains. You can read the summary, they aren’t earth shattering but they are something to tide us over to the real deal (sections 3, 4, 12 and 25). I don’t think this would have passed without the escape clause that could have us back in section 6 negotiations about 10 months after this thing is ratified (if it is).
In summary (I apologize for the lengthy post, I hope it makes sense) what we have is an opportunity to reap a few gains and get some money up front to accept a delay that was going to happen anyway. The company would not move forward with the work rule decision pending, and this allows us to make some extra money while we all wait for the big economic sections to be resolved. The work rule NPRM, the need to negotiate ULR work rules, and their previous statements to the NMB will force them back to the table in less than 10 months if we decide to take the one year option.
The trade off seems more reasonable to me than it did before the meeting, so much so that I have to keep an open mind while I lean toward voting in favor of the TA.
FJ
That being said, the one thing every pilot should do is to attend one of these presentations if at all possible. Everybody has an opinion, and the guys representing us have theirs. They are much closer to the issue than we are, however, and so I have to weigh their opinions more perhaps than the next guy’s. I wanted to look into their eyes and see what they had to say about the TA. If you can’t make a road show then by all means watch the videos, write the NC and block reps, ask questions, and read the TA. Get as much info as you can before you make your decision.
I said I would tell you why I am inclined to vote in favor of the TA. Here goes:
One of the sticking issues for others there today (not to me) was that there is no payback for the losses incurred during 4A2b. I don’t know how to break this to you, but I don’t think there will ever be any, for a couple of reasons. The first, and biggest, is: we lost the grievance. It’s over. We lost. That money is gone.
Secondly, because we got our hat handed to us in arbitration, I don’t get the impression that the NC is all that committed to specifically getting any payback for 4A2b. The company didn’t really save any money in 4A2b. Union dues collected were very similar to the year before. If you want your 4A2b money back, go shake down the super senior in each seat who bid the carryover lines and got 100+ hour BLGs while you and I got our 55 to 60 hours per month. Go shake down the guys who bid the 777 without a pay rate AND enjoyed the massive BLGs that went with it. Go shake down the 757 guys who had monstrous BLGs as well. The company is laughing all the way to the bank, having successfully pitted us against each other during the whole debacle. Bottom line is the pay was just redistributed, not really decreased during 4A2b. We need to get back into section 4 and fix these issues, but we can't do it yet. At least this TA retains the settlement language that we got last year in terms of the exit and fleet BLG averages.
The next biggest stumbling block (in my opinion) to accepting this TA is that we are giving up our greatest leverage by giving the company the FDA LOA. That was my opinion as well. No way we should cave on that without a complete CBA TA. How could we do this and not reap any gains in the areas many of us care deeply about? Trip trades, accepted fares, reserve, chapter 11 etc? Why didn’t we get more for the precious FDA LOA?
After listening to the presentation I am no longer convinced that the FDA LOA is the magic bean for the company. Yes it will save them money and require fewer pilots in the long run, but they are going to open the FDA with an LOA or without (no pun intended) because it makes business sense to do so. They will have absolutely no problem filling either seat in CDG, because we (the pilots) just can’t help ourselves. We can’t even keep from flying DPs or bidding the 777 without a pay rate, how are we going to not fall all over each other to bid CDG? MD-11 in HKG might be more of a challenge in the right seat, but they will be able to fill that with new hires (sound familiar) if they need to under the current CBA.
Not as much leverage perhaps as many think. The guys closest to the situation don’t think so, I have to at least consider that opinion.
So what is our leverage? What will we use to get the company back to the table to negotiate in good faith a complete TA a year from now (or two)?
Ultra long range work rules will still need to be bargained, and that is what the company will really need to get the maximum utilization and competitive advantage out of the 777s.
The company will be forced back to the table after the work rule changes are released, and they have gone on record with the NMB apparently that they will continue to participate in discussions during the next year (or two) while we await the final rules.
The NC got as many gains as they thought they could all things considered. It wasn’t the best perhaps, but it isn’t a bad deal and it allows us to bring them back to the table hopefully while the political climate still favors the labor side of the issue.
I honestly get the impression that although the NC feels this is the way to go, they won’t be too surprised or have their feelings hurt if it is voted down. They will go right back to work negotiating with the company either way.
The MEC voted 10-2 to bring it to the membership for a vote. They purposely forwarded it without a recommendation. I think the MEC is not completely sold on the idea but feel the option was worth putting to the membership to decide. I actually appreciate that more now because I don’t think they are trying to oversell the TA, unlike was done with the FDA LOA. They have chosen to put it in our hands to decide, as it should be.
Nobody on the NC has said that this is the best we could possibly get. But the givebacks are minimal and there are substantive gains. You can read the summary, they aren’t earth shattering but they are something to tide us over to the real deal (sections 3, 4, 12 and 25). I don’t think this would have passed without the escape clause that could have us back in section 6 negotiations about 10 months after this thing is ratified (if it is).
In summary (I apologize for the lengthy post, I hope it makes sense) what we have is an opportunity to reap a few gains and get some money up front to accept a delay that was going to happen anyway. The company would not move forward with the work rule decision pending, and this allows us to make some extra money while we all wait for the big economic sections to be resolved. The work rule NPRM, the need to negotiate ULR work rules, and their previous statements to the NMB will force them back to the table in less than 10 months if we decide to take the one year option.
The trade off seems more reasonable to me than it did before the meeting, so much so that I have to keep an open mind while I lean toward voting in favor of the TA.
FJ
It is much appreciated for those of us that couldn't attend or view it on-line.
Couldn't agree more on those who are hoping to be compensated for lost wages under 4A2B --- I think that's water under the bridge.
Not sure I agree on the lack of leverage the FDAs provide us though.
Why exactly is the company proposing a TA at all if they don't want/need to improve the FDA package??
Are they in some hurry to give us 3% raises and increase per diem?
Am also confused by the logic that extending our contract 1 or 2 years somehow forces them to negotiate more in the near future...or that extending ourselves into the next administration is somehow potentially better for our union....seems to me that it puts us at greater risk.
Finally, while you state the NC isn't trying to "sell it" was there any talk of why some on the MEC voted against it.
Thanks again for taking the time to post your detailed observations.
In Unity,
DLax
02-19-2011, 06:24 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,199
02-19-2011, 06:24 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Posts: 1,275
Correct me if I'm wrong (and there's a 95% chance that I am... 100%, if you talk to my wife), but the MEC vote was 10-2 to send it to the membership for a vote, not a 10-2 endorsement of the TA. Right?
02-19-2011, 06:28 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,199
I assume (...and you know what happens when you assume) the 2 members who voted "No" felt it was not sufficient enough to even offer it to the membership for ratification.
Would love to learn why those members of the MEC felt that way.
But I do see your point that the 10 who voted "yes" may NOT actually "endorse" this TA, but IMHO those MEC Reps who used that logic should communicate that to their block membership.
I know my block rep sent out an email expressing that he was very much "on the fence" and in the end decided that he should let his membership decide the outcome.
Fair enough.
Just want to dispell the argument that the MEC knows special things we don't/can't understand --- and if we did, it would be clear this is the best we can get.
It seems pretty clear that not all MEC members are of that opinion.
I think the current union leadership has done an OUTSTANDING job at increasing communications --- on almost every level.
They have gone above and beyond in getting the word out via numerous formats....but, I would still like to hear the opinions and logic of those dissenting MEC members, without having to email them personally.
In Unity.
Last edited by DLax85; 02-19-2011 at 06:47 AM.
02-19-2011, 07:25 AM
#7
New Hire
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 2
Ok... I'll throw a bit into the mix. I see the fact that the company offered this "hybrid, bridge,extension" T/A, interesting. I think they want to get the FDA language for their own reasons, one might be the fact that they don't like hoe HKG ended up being manned, ( junior, with remaining vacancies). There might be other reasons even more valuable to the company.
Just for the record, I went to the roadshow the 18th with an open mind, but leaning on "NO" vote. I personally heard nothing that seemed worth "validating" this TA. I personally feel that it is so bad, and I think the ones on the NC and the MEC should be ashamed. I'll explain why in a bit.
While I don't think anything major will get resolved in 12 months due to the NPRM, they could address all other sections of the contract with the understanding that the sections of the contract affected by NPRM To be revisited in 12 months or wording to that effect.
Just look, Pinnacle just solidified their contract and we all know that the NPRM will affect their operation and scheduling to a much greater extent than here at F.E.
I do think there is a problem delaying continued negotiation for 12 months or more if this TA is ratified. The political system will be nearing a potential change to a less labor friendly administration, and possibly NMB. Just a thought.
I feel that there are too many sections of the contract that are not addressed in the TA, that are NOT affected by the NPRM!
We have accepted the companies 1st offer far too many times. This offer gives us what?? 3% and a 1% "bonus" (insult)?? To give the company the FDA rules that they want, that will really only affect a small percentage of us. If 3% sounds good to you, and that $350/ month changes your way of life....well then I must not be living the same life as others.
I did get to speak with one of the "2" voters. There are many aspects that have not been discussed in this TA, and there are many protections that are missing in the TA.
I will discuss 2.
1. The bases with fewer than 100 pilots, and the 777 are exempted from the 4a2b "system wide BLG average". There is no wording that the company can't "shift flying" to bases that would be exempted from this average. Therefore, 4a2b could be simply a MEM and possibly ANC problem. Shift flying to LAX , and put MEM based guys on them. Have they done that before??? Yes indeed.
2. The company sees the timing of this working to their advantage.... We will get our 3% now, re-enter at the 12 month point so we won't get the next 3% raise, feet will be dragging until 2013, there is a 2 year implementation of the new NPRM rules, and we will be in a much less advantageous position at the negotiating table.
Look, this isn't personal, NC and MEC guys are doing a thankless job. I thank them, however, I don't think this TA is worth the money that our union is spending ( our dues) to put it on this roadshow. So I don't know if it will be accepted or rejected, but either way I hope it is done by 95%. For me it is a NO, but I am still open minded, just in case I have missed something.
I hope this gives some perspective, but not insult anyone else or their views!!
FLY
Just for the record, I went to the roadshow the 18th with an open mind, but leaning on "NO" vote. I personally heard nothing that seemed worth "validating" this TA. I personally feel that it is so bad, and I think the ones on the NC and the MEC should be ashamed. I'll explain why in a bit.
While I don't think anything major will get resolved in 12 months due to the NPRM, they could address all other sections of the contract with the understanding that the sections of the contract affected by NPRM To be revisited in 12 months or wording to that effect.
Just look, Pinnacle just solidified their contract and we all know that the NPRM will affect their operation and scheduling to a much greater extent than here at F.E.
I do think there is a problem delaying continued negotiation for 12 months or more if this TA is ratified. The political system will be nearing a potential change to a less labor friendly administration, and possibly NMB. Just a thought.
I feel that there are too many sections of the contract that are not addressed in the TA, that are NOT affected by the NPRM!
We have accepted the companies 1st offer far too many times. This offer gives us what?? 3% and a 1% "bonus" (insult)?? To give the company the FDA rules that they want, that will really only affect a small percentage of us. If 3% sounds good to you, and that $350/ month changes your way of life....well then I must not be living the same life as others.
I did get to speak with one of the "2" voters. There are many aspects that have not been discussed in this TA, and there are many protections that are missing in the TA.
I will discuss 2.
1. The bases with fewer than 100 pilots, and the 777 are exempted from the 4a2b "system wide BLG average". There is no wording that the company can't "shift flying" to bases that would be exempted from this average. Therefore, 4a2b could be simply a MEM and possibly ANC problem. Shift flying to LAX , and put MEM based guys on them. Have they done that before??? Yes indeed.
2. The company sees the timing of this working to their advantage.... We will get our 3% now, re-enter at the 12 month point so we won't get the next 3% raise, feet will be dragging until 2013, there is a 2 year implementation of the new NPRM rules, and we will be in a much less advantageous position at the negotiating table.
Look, this isn't personal, NC and MEC guys are doing a thankless job. I thank them, however, I don't think this TA is worth the money that our union is spending ( our dues) to put it on this roadshow. So I don't know if it will be accepted or rejected, but either way I hope it is done by 95%. For me it is a NO, but I am still open minded, just in case I have missed something.
I hope this gives some perspective, but not insult anyone else or their views!!
FLY
02-19-2011, 07:41 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: FedEx Capt
Posts: 292
I did get to speak with one of the "2" voters. There are many aspects that have not been discussed in this TA, and there are many protections that are missing in the TA.
I will discuss 2.
1. The bases with fewer than 100 pilots, and the 777 are exempted from the 4a2b "system wide BLG average". There is no wording that the company can't "shift flying" to bases that would be exempted from this average. Therefore, 4a2b could be simply a MEM and possibly ANC problem. Shift flying to LAX , and put MEM based guys on them. Have they done that before??? Yes indeed.
2. The company sees the timing of this working to their advantage.... We will get our 3% now, re-enter at the 12 month point so we won't get the next 3% raise, feet will be dragging until 2013, there is a 2 year implementation of the new NPRM rules, and we will be in a much less advantageous position at the negotiating table.
Look, this isn't personal, NC and MEC guys are doing a thankless job. I thank them, however, I don't think this TA is worth the money that our union is spending ( our dues) to put it on this roadshow. So I don't know if it will be accepted or rejected, but either way I hope it is done by 95%. For me it is a NO, but I am still open minded, just in case I have missed something.
I hope this gives some perspective, but not insult anyone else or their views!!
FLY
I will discuss 2.
1. The bases with fewer than 100 pilots, and the 777 are exempted from the 4a2b "system wide BLG average". There is no wording that the company can't "shift flying" to bases that would be exempted from this average. Therefore, 4a2b could be simply a MEM and possibly ANC problem. Shift flying to LAX , and put MEM based guys on them. Have they done that before??? Yes indeed.
2. The company sees the timing of this working to their advantage.... We will get our 3% now, re-enter at the 12 month point so we won't get the next 3% raise, feet will be dragging until 2013, there is a 2 year implementation of the new NPRM rules, and we will be in a much less advantageous position at the negotiating table.
Look, this isn't personal, NC and MEC guys are doing a thankless job. I thank them, however, I don't think this TA is worth the money that our union is spending ( our dues) to put it on this roadshow. So I don't know if it will be accepted or rejected, but either way I hope it is done by 95%. For me it is a NO, but I am still open minded, just in case I have missed something.
I hope this gives some perspective, but not insult anyone else or their views!!
FLY
We open ourselves up to more opportunities for the Company to win in Arbitration.
Even bigger, where is the language addressing how many pilots the Company intends to Furlough before they can even enter 4.A.2.B...
That was addressed in the Grievance, and especially in the Arbitrator's decision as a clear ambiguity, and it definitely should have been addressed in the T/A!
Last edited by A300_Driver; 02-19-2011 at 07:43 AM. Reason: forgot some words...
02-19-2011, 08:00 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 177
Voting NO.
SG
02-19-2011, 08:16 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 177
After listening to the presentation I am no longer convinced that the FDA LOA is the magic bean for the company. Yes it will save them money and require fewer pilots in the long run, but they are going to open the FDA with an LOA or without (no pun intended) because it makes business sense to do so. They will have absolutely no problem filling either seat in CDG, because we (the pilots) just can’t help ourselves. We can’t even keep from flying DPs or bidding the 777 without a pay rate, how are we going to not fall all over each other to bid CDG? MD-11 in HKG might be more of a challenge in the right seat, but they will be able to fill that with new hires (sound familiar) if they need to under the current CBA.
You are correct; they can open up a FDA anywhere under the current CBA. However, since they could have done it even before our current crappy LOA, you have to ask yourself what is motivating them to offer an even better LOA if they can open it up on their own? No one knows for sure, but it probably has to do with cost, reliability and regulatory issues. Obviously the LOA is the most efficient (cheapest?) way for them to skirt around these issues. So in essence they need the LOA to get what they want. Remember, they approached us with the LOA first. The NC wisely tied the LOA to the contract and that's how we ended up with the current TA. The NC obviously feels this is the best they could get for the LOA. Now, it's up to the membership to decide whether that's enough or not.
If we deny them the LOA, I'm sure they will reevaluate their other options and possibly choose to go with the next cheapest one that offers them similar benefits in service reliability, taxes and work rules. Personally, I don't think there are any other viable options for them.
But once we give them the LOA, there is nothing else motivating them to continue negotiating until after the NPRM is implemented AND evaluated (which could very well take years). Their desire for the LOA will keep them engaged in negotiations and maybe we can get the whole thing done. The NC's point is that they feel that the gains are enough and they want to capture them with this TA, and continue negotiating in a year after the dust from the NPRM settles. But at that point, what will be the motivation for the company once they have the LOA?
SG
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
